Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Earth to G.O.P.: The Gipper Is Dead
Of course you didn't watch the first Republican presidential debate on MSNBC. Even the party's most loyal base didn't abandon Fox News, where Bill O'Reilly, interviewing the already overexposed George Tenet, drew far more viewers. Yet the few telling video scraps that entered the 24/7 mediasphere did turn the event into an instant "Saturday Night Live" parody without "SNL" having to lift a finger. The row of 10 middle-aged white candidates, David Letterman said, looked like "guys waiting to tee off at a restricted country club."
Since then, panicked Republicans have been either blaming the "Let's Make a Deal" debate format or praying for salvation-by-celebrity in the form of another middle-aged white guy who might enter the race, Fred Thompson. They don't seem to get that there is not another major brand in the country — not Wal-Mart, not G.E., not even Denny's nowadays — that would try to sell a mass product with such a demographically homogeneous sales force. And that's only half the problem. The other half is that the Republicans don't have a product to sell. Aside from tax cuts and a wall on the Mexican border, the only issue that energized the presidential contenders was Ronald Reagan. The debate's most animated moments by far came as they clamored to lip-sync his "optimism," his "morning in America," his "shining city on the hill" and even, in a bizarre John McCain moment out of a Chucky movie, his grin.
The candidates mentioned Reagan's name 19 times, the current White House occupant's once. Much as the Republicans hope that the Gipper can still be a panacea for all their political ills, so they want to believe that if only President Bush would just go away and take his rock-bottom approval rating and equally unpopular war with him, all of their problems would be solved. But it could be argued that the Iraq fiasco, disastrous to American interests as it is, actually masks the magnitude of the destruction this presidency has visited both on the country in general and the G.O.P. in particular.
By my rough, conservative calculation — feel free to add — there have been corruption, incompetence, and contracting or cronyism scandals in these cabinet departments: Defense, Education, Justice, Interior, Homeland Security, Veterans Affairs, Health and Human Services, and Housing and Urban Development. I am not counting State, whose deputy secretary, a champion of abstinence-based international AIDS funding, resigned last month in a prostitution scandal, or the General Services Administration, now being investigated for possibly steering federal favors to Republican Congressional candidates in 2006. Or the Office of Management and Budget, whose chief procurement officer was sentenced to prison in the Abramoff fallout. I will, however, toss in a figure that reveals the sheer depth of the overall malfeasance: no fewer than four inspectors general, the official watchdogs charged with investigating improprieties in each department, are themselves under investigation simultaneously — an all-time record.
Wrongdoing of this magnitude does not happen by accident, but it is not necessarily instigated by a Watergate-style criminal conspiracy. When corruption is this pervasive, it can also be a byproduct of a governing philosophy. That's the case here. That Bush-Rove style of governance, the common denominator of all the administration scandals, is the Frankenstein creature that stalks the G.O.P. as it faces 2008. It has become the Republican brand and will remain so, even after this president goes, until courageous Republicans disown it and eradicate it.
It's not the philosophy Mr. Bush campaigned on. Remember the candidate who billed himself as a "different kind of Republican" and a "compassionate conservative"? Karl Rove wanted to build a lasting Republican majority by emulating the tactics of the 1896 candidate, William McKinley, whose victory ushered in G.O.P. dominance that would last until the New Deal some 35 years later. The Rove plan was to add to the party's base, much as McKinley had at the dawn of the industrial era, by attracting new un-Republican-like demographic groups, including Hispanics and African-Americans. Hence, No Child Left Behind, an education program pitched particularly to urban Americans, and a 2000 nominating convention that starred break dancers, gospel singers, Colin Powell and, as an M.C., the only black Republican member of Congress, J. C. Watts.
As always, the salesmanship was brilliant. One smitten liberal columnist imagined in 1999 that Mr. Bush could redefine his party: "If compassion and inclusion are his talismans, education his centerpiece and national unity his promise, we may say a final, welcome goodbye to the wedge issues that have divided Americans by race, ethnicity and religious conviction." Or not. As Matthew Dowd, the disaffected Bush pollster, concluded this spring, the uniter he had so eagerly helped elect turned out to be "not the person" he thought, but instead a divider who wanted to appeal to the "51 percent of the people" who would ensure his hold on power.
But it isn't just the divisive Bush-Rove partisanship that led to scandal. The corruption grew out of the White House's insistence that partisanship — the maintenance of that 51 percent — dictate every governmental action no matter what the effect on the common good. And so the first M.B.A. president ignored every rule of sound management. Loyal ideologues or flunkies were put in crucial positions regardless of their ethics or competence. Government business was outsourced to campaign contributors regardless of their ethics or competence. Even orthodox Republican fiscal prudence was tossed aside so Congressional allies could be bought off with bridges to nowhere.
This was true way before many, let alone Matthew Dowd, were willing to see it. It was true before the Iraq war. In retrospect, the first unimpeachable evidence of the White House's modus operandi was reported by the journalist Ron Suskind, for Esquire, at the end of 2002. Mr. Suskind interviewed an illustrious Bush appointee, the University of Pennsylvania political scientist John DiIulio, who had run the administration's compassionate-conservative flagship, the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. Bemoaning an unprecedented "lack of a policy apparatus" in the White House, Mr. DiIulio said: "What you've got is everything — and I mean everything — being run by the political arm. It's the reign of the Mayberry Machiavellis."
His words have been borne out repeatedly: by the unqualified political hacks and well-connected no-bid contractors who sabotaged the occupation and reconstruction of Iraq; the politicization of science at the Food and Drug Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency; the outsourcing of veterans' care to a crony company at Walter Reed; and the purge of independent United States attorneys at Alberto Gonzales's Justice Department. But even more pertinent, perhaps, to the Republican future is how the Mayberry Machiavellis alienated the precise groups that Mr. Bush had promised to add to his party's base.
By installing a political hack, his 2000 campaign manager, Joe Allbaugh, at the top of FEMA, the president foreordained the hiring of Brownie and the disastrous response to Katrina. At the Education Department, the signature No Child Left Behind program, Reading First, is turning out to be a cesspool of contracting conflicts of interest. It's also at that department that Bush loyalists stood passively by while the student-loan industry scandal exploded; at its center is Nelnet, the single largest corporate campaign contributor to the 2006 G.O.P. Congressional campaign committee. Back at Mr. Gonzales's operation, where revelations of politicization and cover-ups mount daily, it turns out that no black lawyers have been hired in the nearly all-white criminal section of the civil rights division since 2003.
The sole piece of compassionate conservatism that Mr. Bush has tried not to sacrifice to political expedience — nondraconian immigration reform — is also on the ropes, done in by a wave of xenophobia that he has failed to combat. Just how knee-jerk this strain has become could be seen in the MSNBC debate when Chris Matthews asked the candidates if they would consider a constitutional amendment to allow presidential runs by naturalized citizens like their party's star governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger (an American since 1983), and its national chairman, Senator Mel Martinez of Florida. Seven out of 10 said no.
We've certainly come a long way from that 2000 Philadelphia convention, with its dream of forging an inclusive, long-lasting G.O.P. majority. Instead of break dancers and a black Republican congressman (there are none now), we've had YouTube classics like Mr. Rove's impersonation of a rapper at a Washington journalists' banquet and George Allen's "macaca" meltdown. Simultaneously, the once-reliable evangelical base is starting to drift as some of its leaders join the battle against global warming and others recognize that they've been played for fools on "family values" by the G.O.P. establishment that covered up for Mark Foley.
Meanwhile, most of the pressing matters that the public cares passionately about — Iraq, health care, the environment and energy independence — belong for now to the Democrats. Though that party's first debate wasn't exactly an intellectual feast either, actual issues were engaged by presidential hopefuls representing a cross section of American demographics. You don't see Democratic candidates changing the subject to J.F.K. and F.D.R. They are free to start wrestling with the future while the men inheriting the Bush-Rove brand of Republicanism are reduced to harking back to a morning in America on which the sun set in 1989.
© 2007 The New York Times

19 Comments so far
Show AllFrank Rich makes a great point about the current GOP and its desperate clinging to a long-dead Reagan, but I think he's forgetting his 1980s history. Reagan ran - and won - as an anti government politician. He was, perhaps, the first such creature. He didn't bill himself as just anti-Washington (he was, in fact, wildly happy with the Washington scene, which was much like Hollywood) or anti-liberal (though he was that); but anti-government. Ponder that. Anti-government. Ron described the federal government as "the enemy." Given that in our culture the government is supposed to be the manifestation of the will of the majority, his statement was - and remains - telling. And Bush, Cheney, Rove are, in that sense, very much Reagan's heirs. They have governed as a tiny group in league against the "enemy," ie., the majority of Americans. They initially hoped to create one-party rule, erasing what we all have been lulled into believing is the natural, self-perpetuating state of American-style democracy. Seeing that hope dashed, they're now relying on their alternate course, which is to leave a federal government so fiscally and morally bankrupt that it'll be decades - if ever - before it can be seen as a particularly positive force. Schools, environmental controls, civil rights - all could be subjegated to our military necessities and debt. That'll be seen as a direct result of Bush etc., but I think it's very fair to say the concept got started when Reagan awoke from a nap to discover that "anti-government" politicking was a winner.
"Earth to G.O.P.: The Gipper Is Dead,"
but now lives on in the hearts of Democrats.
Looking back on it, I'm not sure "the Gipper" was ever really alive. Though it would be naive and unrealistic to expect either head of the corporate party to actually choose an unowned candidate with vision, that's the only kind of leadership that will begin to undo the damage that has been done and put this juggernaut of a nation on a better track.
ever since the republicans adopted think-tank scripted sound bites (in 1980) as their sole communication devise, no semblance of truth can be found from any republican leader.
whether it be the supply-side lie (reagan), iran-contra (reagan), star wars defense (reagan), deficits created by "congress" even when congress allocates less than requested (reagan), and on and on.
good soldiers those republicans. they continue to win the war of lies and deceit started by reagan and his think-tank cohorts. bush is the master of deceit, but cheney and mccain are competing for the spot.
Since Reagan, the Republicans have been selling the snake oil that public debt is OK because it encourages private growth that leads to higher tax revenues that then pay the public debt. People like Kudlow are STILL selling it!
After 30 years of Republican supply-side economics, its put-up-or-shut-up time for that crowd. The 'growing economy' tax revenues never showed up, and it is now the uphappy duty of Reagans GRANDCHILDREN to pay for his administration and that of his accolyte, Bush. Plus, of course, $300 billion a year in INTEREST payments on their Debt. The debt has foreign investors fleeing dollars, making America cheap enough to be bought, increasingly, by foreigners. Way to stand up for America, Republicans.
Call it 'Evening in America'.
Reagan not only failed Americans in economics,as ubrew12 points out, but also in foreign policy.
Reagan created, funded, trained and equipped the Mojahadeen in Afghanistan during the 1980s. The Mojahadeen later became the Taliban and Al Qaeda. The strength of Al Qaeda today can be attributed to Reagan's support of these so called "freedom fighters."
We voted for these crooks and we deserve everything that it brought and brings. Representative government goes both ways. You reap what you sow. If I file bankrupcy I must vacate my home and become a homeless bum. A whole country can become indentured servitude. A whole country can fall for the come-ons of hjgh-interest crdit card companies. The corporist own you, me and the whole country. If you elect an actor as president don't be surprized that you are being entertained by a fictional story line. "mourning in (for the old) america" is were we are today. Not that democrats are any better, they just what rule so as to make more money as they too screw us. The Gipper is dead but so is the american dream , hope, integgrity, patriotism, and any semblance of democracy.
HEY FPAL;
They are still freedom fighters, now they are fighting the aggerssors that replaced the russians, that is the US. What could be more obvious, how ungrateful of them you seem to be saying "so called" for not being happy we saved them from the "Evil Empire". Now they can/should enjoy the "Empire of Evil'.
We have met the Evil Empire -- and it is us.
let us not forget that the US President Rove so much likes to try to emulate (McKinley) is the one who supported the illegal American takeover of Hawaii's monarchy in the 1890's -- thus arguably being the beginning of America's expansionist empire
i never never never understood the country's adoration of Reagan, to me he seemed like a hollow man, although his level of acting suited American politics admirably (we don't seem to have a very high standard)
one can only hope that the days of spin over substance are over, although i am just a tad more concerned than Mr. Rich seems to be about the legacy of these reptilian Reps -- can we reverse their damage before another would-be dictator takes over?
Ironically, Reagan has himself been "corporatized" in death, "embodied" as it were, after a week long national media ritual that culminated in Nancy Reagan's spectacular plunge onto the Gipper's casket (whiter shades of James Brown?). Now he looks down upon us, noding with that same admixture of wisdom and senility, immortal as Walt Disney and his evil empire.
let the gop cling to reagan. the more the hang on to him, the faster they will go down. also, the way i understand, the only connection between the current administration and reagan's is the fact that they both ran under the gop flag. the 'reaganites' and the neocons, who got their real start at that time, fought like cats and dogs for control of the gop. guess who won?
Reagan was one of the last of the feel-good oppressors. A couple points to comment on -- it may be that the Rethugs have worked out a Texas-style governorship in which the executive is largely a titulatory/shield-like position, the lieutenant is the real executor. For instance, Reagan was just the front man for Bush Sr., and Bush Jr. is somewhat the front-man for Cheney. I don't know if I believe this theory myself, but I shoot it out here for consideration in this context.
The other thing about the Reagan technique of idiocy/fallacy/"misinformation" is how well its been used as a ruse. Carnivorous, even cannibalistic, people use foolishness as a cloak of sorts. You can't use humor in their line of "work", so they lean on idiocy. They either do it deliberately, or get a "natural" to do it for them. It opens up the interpretation by the electorate that they aren't actually calculating/ruthless fascists, just idiots. But that old technique has worn itself out.
So the neocons aren't worshipping Reagan for his policies, so much as they long for the good old days -- when a lie and a smile, a snippet of feel-good propaganda, the illusion of idiocy and other platitudes went a long way.
Good point Paul Bramscher,
There are many tricks up the fascist sleeve, and creating the image of an idiot figurehead to hide sinister motives (meaning dishonest attempts to enrich the few at the expense of the many) is clearly one of them. But it cannot work unless the press plays along, and the corporate media has played along every step of the way. Few members of the mainstream corporate media (Paul Krugman, Keith Olbermann, and a few others) hint that there may be sinister motives behind all the machinations of the Bush administration. The corporate media nevers fail to provide exculpatory explanations and excuses for any wrongdoing that is exposed.
One expects Republican politicians to be ruthless, mendacious, rapacious, irredeemable, fascist predators, but it stings to realize that the mainstream media is no better.
Can someone explain me why Reagan was acclaimed as the Great Communicator? Frank Luntz was too young at that time. Besides, what country is it, which can turn its course of history on a "Here we go again!" catch-it-all figment of a phrase?
Or is it at all possible that the very concept of might, military might in the first place so successfully challenged by mere human beings in Iraq and elsewhere, is just that: a figment of imagination?
bdrube:
"We met Evil Empire and it is us". How rightly so!
I remember vividly like it was yesterday the emotional charge of this phrase quarter of century ago and how happy I was then. That Evil Empire has gone without as much as a wisp; time came to collect peace dividends. When dividends were not forthcoming, but bombing from high altitudes were becoming Standard Operation Procedures in Serbia and elsewhere, I reluctantly open my eyes to The Evil Empire, of which Soviet Union was a mere mirror image.
So, here we go again! How rightly so.
Most of my republican friends say they voted for a man that could ACT at least like a president, they claim they did not like the way Carter LOOKED! They are still having the same problem, today! The want the actor that can act, not govern, but act like he does!
Mr. Reagan traded arms for hostages, cut and ran from Lebanon, and doubled the national debt. Hard to believe anyone wants to take up his mantle.
vinlander,
Well, the GOP is very selective. You know, very selective of the intelligence used to support the case for the War in Iraq, etc.
Likewise their selective deification of Reagan. Their ears resonate with "Tear down this wall", but selling armaments to the country that held our embassy hostage in order to fund goon squads in central America, with additional funding coming from running crack into California fades in the twilight.
I wonder if being a "good American" requires having a short memory. Because mine doesn't seem to be quite short enough...